differentiations as forms existing in their own right are conceived of as outside of it. This Essence, which exists within itself, may indeed be conceived of too as existing for itself, as Brahma is self-thinking. Brahma is the universal Soul; when he creates, he himself issues as a breath out of himself; he contemplates himself, and exists then for himself.
But his abstract simplicity does not at once vanish owing to this, for the moments, the universality of Brahma as such, and the “_I_” for which that universality exists, these two are not determined as contrasted with one another, and their relation is therefore itself simple. Brahma exists thus as abstractly existing for himself. The Power and the basis of existences and all things have, in fact, proceeded out of him and vanished in him. In saying to himself, “I am Brahma,” all things have vanished back into him, have vanished in him. Whether as outside of him, existing independently, or within him, they have vanished; there is only the relation of these two extremes. But posited as differentiated determinations, they appear as independent existences outside of him, since he is primarily abstract, and not concrete in himself.
The Power posited in this manner potentially only works inwardly without showing itself as activity. I manifest myself as power in so far as I am cause and determine, in so far as I am a subject, when I throw a stone, and so forth. But this potentially existing Power works in a universal manner, without this universality being a subject for itself, a self-conscious subject. These universal modes of working, understood in their true character, are, for instance, the Laws of Nature.
Now Brahma, as the one, simple, absolute Substance, is the neuter, or, as we say, the Godhead: Brahma expresses this universal Essence more as a Person, as a subject. But this is a distinction which is not constantly made use of, and in the different grammatical cases this
